[Singularity]

 

[[RoH] Ladies With Gentle Hands]

10 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Did he actually? 😂 I would think this was a joke, but it's Kastor, so clarification needed.

Its real.

[[Treaty] Contact From Another Dimension]

2 hours ago, The Titan said:

First
Also I think TFP and Sing are the ones collecting the trash, lol

Cmon darkblade, you can do better

Why is this pot calling my kettle black?

[[PEACE] All in a day]

9 minutes ago, George Clooney said:

Some of us (including WTF's allies in the initial stage of things, and Singularity & Co. no doubt) started fighting this war in December 20th are getting a kick out of some of these replies.

Well fought/played everyone.  The P&W servers suffered under the strain.

Nobody deserves this.

[Rose Opens Business Office in Uritithu]

15 minutes ago, James II said:

What are you talking about? You can't help but ally TKR and hit Aurora can you. Ironic

[The Absolute State of SAIL]

[‎ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ]

Singularity is the biggest villain, literally worse than NPO

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

40 minutes ago, Agent W said:

[[DoW] Trying out ChatGPI]

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I can only imagine the countless hours you must spend painstakingly crafting your messages with quill and parchment, as any form of assistance or efficiency is apparently beneath your superior standards.

Watch out Sketchy, @Darth Ataxia is slowly but surely writing his comeback.

[A Spectre is Haunting Orbis]

Alright, IA-man reporting, I guess I'm gonna use these forums for something and reply to these one at a time for the 3 people that are gonna read it. (Except for Roberts because he never replies to the replies I make on his posts)
 

On 11/19/2023 at 8:22 PM, Raphael said:

If you joined this game after 2020, you probably don't know any better when I say this: Almost no non-raiding alliance forced, or even recommended, their lower tiers to raid when starting out their nations. Lower tier raiding became a meta once people saw what it could be. 

That isn't true. You being in Rose should know better than anyone that Rose and other majors began the raiding meta eons ago, tracing back to 2017 and 2018. That is the meta everyone followed for the last 5-6 years and one that got pushed because it was inexpensive and required less effort, not because it was profitable. The post 2020 meta didn't become overpowered when people noticed what it could be, it got abused because the admin allowed a bad line of code. C3 raiding was never meant to be that profitable and nobody suddenly discovered a new tech.
 

On 11/19/2023 at 8:22 PM, Raphael said:

It can be amazingly profitable and efficient -- and if you ask any alliance in the top 50 today you'll learn that most don't accept new players unless they agree to grind raiding for at least the first two or three months.

---------------

I know this is starting to sound counter-intuitive because every Econ and IA head in the game is about to tell me that raiding is the best way to grow new nations and it also limits the amount of money lost to inactive new players if you're not giving them grants or loans in the first place...

---------------

I know this is probably one of my more controversial essays, I recognize raiding as being highly efficient on paper

Again, all of these statements aren't entirely true. People repeat this narrative and take it for granted because it was popular for the last 2-3 years, but it isn't true anymore. It is currently a sub-par way of growing your low tier because post C20 timer removal, you get higher ROI simply bulk-growing your C3s traditionally through grants. Raiding has been relegated to being a test of commitment more than anything, just as it was before the 2020 bug was introduced.

The alliances that still utilize the post-2020 raiding meta do so because they run low taxes, and neither can afford the necessary investment nor will see the return on their investment because they can't appropriately tax the members they fund. ie. they're slow to adapt and need to git gud.

To those that don't pay attention, alliances like The Coal Mines and Camelot have adapted to the new system and have built massive c16/c20 walls using high taxes and EA micromanagement in their low tiers.
 

On 11/19/2023 at 8:22 PM, Raphael said:

The attrition of new players has always been high. However, almost universally across the game 2023 was one of the worst years for new players in recent memory. I've seen call after call for the developers to do something, to create new content so that might help retain interest in the game.

That also isn't true. If anything, retention rates have gone up since the C20 timers have been removed and that isn't the main issue we're currently having. The issue we are having is a lack of new players registering to play the game as those numbers have been going down steadily since the beginning of the year. In September, they hit record lows.

Not only that, but less and less players are willing to use discord as a platform of communication as time goes on. The reason for this is that the majority of users that register for discord tend to be adults between the ages of 24 and 34, and the majority of new nations created are of individuals between 14-18. Thus, micros that recruit non-discord users see higher recruitment rates than almost all majors with the exception of Rose and SIN.

The way to raise retention for new players isn't a secret, it's something we've known how to fix for ages, but the issue we're having is that we're more concerned with tweaking the war mechanics and thus IA/Econ discussions rarely see the light of day. Nowadays I leave my suggestions with Alex and the people on the design team directly, because convincing the active player-base on this issue isn't gonna happen since the bulk of the communication in RON is comprised of high tier raiders that are out of touch.

[[Anniversary] Seven Years of House Stark]

Happy 7 years House Stark!

[Returning to Orbis]

Welcome back buddy

[That losef stalin alliance sucks don't it]

2 hours ago, Looking said:

quit just saying dnn you can say it but quit saying JUST dnn and actually make your posts longer

dnn

[[DOE] Inflection Point]

[[Peace] Another One In The Books]

Legion when they wake up and read House Stark's peace offer

[Game Development Discussion: Superiorities Feedback]

2 minutes ago, Village said:

Replacement Idea 1: Army value modifier

Simply put, this idea aims to even the playing field across city counts and enable smaller nations to have a better ability to fight back by facing opponents with a proportionally smaller army value.

This proposal is to take the calculated army value (for calculating attack success, not casualties) and raise it to the power of 3/4. I.e. If I have an army value of 1000, my army value is now 1000^(3/4) = 177, and my opponent’s army value goes from 800 to 150.

For casualties, the kills for each unit will be calculated using the formula (the army values here are pre-adjustment to the power of 3/4) ((att army value + def army value) / (att army value ^ (3/4) + def army value ^ (3/4))) * (side army value ^ (3/4)). For example, to calculate attacker kills the side army value would be the attacker’s army value before being adjusted to the power of 3/4. This formula has the effect that it reduces attacker losses and increases defender losses when a smaller military is attacking a larger, and increases attacker losses while reducing defender losses when a larger military is attacking a smaller.

Below we have some data about how this will affect attack odds and casualties:

• Current odds with some key components marked

• Odds under the new system

• https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2tyqeupxac
  • This allows you to play around and mess with the army value used for calculating casualties
• https://www.desmos.com/calculator/r7n5aiucer
  • This is calculating ship losses in the new system, with both upper and lower bounds

Love this tbh

[A Critical Examination of Darkblade's Proposal against 100/100 Taxes in Politics and War]

Just now, Presidential said:

Anyone sick of paying taxes can always apply to Grumpy and get rejected by me.

Hello Presidential,

It seems like you have a humorous take on the topic of taxes and rejections. While it's understandable that paying taxes can be frustrating for some, it's important to recognize the necessity of taxation for the functioning of various services and infrastructure within a society.

However, rejection can sometimes be disappointing for individuals seeking alternative solutions. It would be interesting to know more about the criteria or reasons behind the rejections you mentioned. Perhaps exploring ways to improve the application process or providing transparency could lead to a more inclusive and engaging experience for players.

Thank you for adding a touch of humor to the discussion.

[A Critical Examination of Darkblade's Proposal against 100/100 Taxes in Politics and War]

Just now, Sketchy said:

Darkblade is cracked out.

Hello Sketchy,

I understand that you have reservations about Darkblade's proposal, but it is important to maintain a respectful and constructive tone in our discussions. Resorting to derogatory language like "cracked out" does not contribute positively to the conversation. Let's focus on addressing the concerns raised and fostering a meaningful exchange of ideas.

If you have specific points you'd like to discuss or critique in Darkblade's proposal, I encourage you to elaborate on them. Providing well-reasoned arguments will help us better understand your perspective and contribute to a more productive discussion.

Thank you

[A Critical Examination of Darkblade's Proposal against 100/100 Taxes in Politics and War]

Dear fellow forum members,

I would like to take a moment to address a recent post made by Darkblade regarding the implementation of 100/100 taxes in politics and war. While I appreciate Darkblade's perspective, I find several aspects of the proposal problematic and would like to engage in a constructive discussion to shed light on these concerns.

Firstly, Darkblade argues that high taxes at such levels diminish player incentives to pursue profitable builds and remain actively involved in the game. It is crucial to consider that excessive taxation can create a disincentive for players to invest their time and resources in building thriving economies or developing innovative strategies. A balanced taxation system, providing reasonable incentives and exemptions, promotes a dynamic and engaging environment for players to thrive.

Additionally, Darkblade highlights the potential setbacks for less active players or those who are unaware of grant opportunities. It is important to recognize the importance of equal opportunities for growth within the game. Implementing educational resources, mentorship programs, or reduced taxes for newer players can create a level playing field and encourage their development, regardless of their activity levels or familiarity with the game mechanics.

Darkblade's suggestion of relying on nations themselves for growth, with low taxes mainly designated for war-related expenses, poses a significant risk. While it may seem appealing to allow players to take full responsibility for their nations' progress, it neglects the collective aspect of the game world. Adequate funds are necessary for infrastructure development, defense mechanisms, and recovery after conflicts. Striking a balance between individual responsibility and shared resources ensures a thriving and resilient game environment.

Lastly, Darkblade raises concerns about the safety of players' funds and proposes measures for preventing raids or theft. While safeguarding players' wealth is a valid concern, it is crucial to maintain a realistic and fair approach. Implementing secure systems such as vaults or banks can provide a sense of security while allowing for reasonable risk and gameplay dynamics.

In conclusion, while Darkblade's proposal sparks important discussions, it is crucial to critically examine its potential drawbacks. A balanced approach to taxation, including incentives, exemptions, educational resources, and collective responsibility, is key to fostering an engaging and fair gaming experience for all. Let us continue this dialogue and explore alternative solutions that benefit the entire community.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your valuable insights and perspectives.

[[DOW] KT need a shower]

wtf based

[War Rewrite, Test Server Tournament, and Loads of Other Changes! - June 2023 Update]

Just now, Village said:

 

• Superiorities in war have been changed to a two phase system, some details are posted below:

  Immense Triumph

  • If holding superiority (or no one has superiority), will increase by one phase to a maximum of 2
  • If not holding superiority, will decrease from 2 to 1, if at phase 1 will flip the owner of the superiority
  • Will decrease opponent superiorities in ALL wars

Please don't do this. This doesn't help anyone except for people that are downdeclaring. Updeclares are going to be infinitely more difficult when you can't compensate a strength/numbers disadvantage with an attacker advantage anymore.

Not only that but the game is already a diceroll simulator. Now you're gonna have to do twice the amount of airstrikes at the start of every war meaning we'll default back to the plane meta where people will spam airstrikes on each other for an entire round.

I just see myself clutching my cross and my pearls at the start of every war praying for my sh*tty 40% IT over and over again to get the stupid phase of air superiority.

[Proposed Log-in Bonus Increases]

Just now, Pascal said:

Raiders will still raid and the best ones (likely <0.1% of players below c10) will just make 38m$ a day instead of 30m$ now kekek.

Nobody cares about the best raiders. There are ways to get ahead of the game regardless of these changes. The point is to steer the meta as a whole away from keeping new players at city 3 for eons and thus giving them higher retention, introducing more players into the game in the process. The importance falls on the casual player as they make up 95% of the player-base.

Just now, Pascal said:

I redirect you to my second comment. 8m$ for doing nothing is a lot and brings nothing of value while only penalizing <c10 who are older than 60 days.

I'd just lower it to 4m$ or so max + activity center at 2m$/day is more than good enough already.

I mean idk about the numbers, I'm sure they'll go over them before this actually gets introduced. The increase as a whole however is a generally good thing that doesn't penalize anyone lol.

[Proposed Log-in Bonus Increases]

I honestly don't know what the moaning is about cuz I actually like this. The problem raiding has atm is that you're stuck at the same city count grinding numbers you're saving for later; It's not inherently engaging. I would rather have people build up sooner and then keep getting that passive income for another month whilst they're building into the low tier. This will make the transition into the mid tier easier since you won't get gutted with a 50% revenue decrease when you move to city 10.

On an alliance level, I'd rather have a burgeoning low tier that contributes to the alliance taxes and gets involved during globals than a bunch of c3s that are sitting there for 100 days grinding their requirements.

6 minutes ago, Avatar Patrick said:

I would've preferred we keep the inactive loot targets since it seems the deletion has had a minimal impact on resource prices so far.

Funnily enough Alex didn't actually make a change, he only fixed code for a feature that was already implemented ages ago. These nations never should've been allowed to exist in the first place and we were simply abusing a broken line of code. Now that raiders won't introduce those raws into the market, I think we'll see gradual improvement in the prices over time and actual low tier members that do produce raws will get better prices and thus be able to grow quicker. Either way, this was direly needed and I'm glad it got fixed before things got even worse. We'll only be able to tell how this impacted raiding given some time since right now I'm not seeing a change worth fussing about.

3 hours ago, Pascal said:

8m$ a day is too much for a new player. That's about a c13/14 daily income with 2k infra.

Yes, but a c3 making as much as a c30 was fine?

[People that use ChatGPT need to be stopped.]

Dear fellow players,

I appreciate the insights shared regarding the use of AI in content generation, specifically within the realm of writing posts and announcements. It's clear that you have explored different models, such as PNWGPT and ChatGPT, and have found value in PNWGPT due to its incorporation of past examples and information, particularly when crafting fake call-to-action announcements.

I understand the concerns raised about relying on AI to expedite content creation without much consideration. While AI can undoubtedly be a powerful tool for generating text, it should always be employed in a manner that adds value and enhances the overall quality of the content being produced. Simply relying on AI to automate the process without thoughtfulness can indeed lead to subpar results.

Your appreciation for well-crafted posts that demonstrate thought aligns with the understanding that quality writing extends beyond generating text quickly. It encompasses the ability to convey meaningful ideas, engage readers, and inspire thoughtful discussions. While AI can assist in the writing process, it should never replace human creativity, critical thinking, and the personal touch that stems from genuine human effort.

Ultimately, the decision on how to utilize AI in content creation is subjective and depends on individual preferences and goals. Striking a balance between leveraging AI's capabilities to improve efficiency and maintaining the authenticity and thoughtfulness that make content truly valuable is crucial.

Let's continue to explore the possibilities AI presents while being mindful of preserving the essence and quality of our content. By combining the strengths of AI and human ingenuity, we can create engaging and impactful posts that enrich our gaming experience.

Best regards,
Abadon

[Adjustments to resource consumptions]

On 6/7/2023 at 7:18 PM, Prefontaine said:

RESOURCES USED FOR CITIES
Starting after C20, every city requires 100 iron, bauxite, lead, steel, aluminum. This increases by 100 for each city until C30, after C30 it increases by 200. After C40 it increases by 300. After C50 it increases by 400. Cities above C20 are reduced by 2.5% for cash Cities above C40 are also discounted by another 2.5% (5% total). Any current discounts to city production does not impact resources, only cash costs. 

This is a terrible idea from an alliance perspective btw. Having to !@#$ around with 1000 iron and lead to grant someone a city is just extremely annoying and won't do anything to fix the market. It's just a needless time sink for alliance governments to manage micro amounts of raws.

And on the flip side, even if you wanted to look at it from a nation perspective; having to go on the market and buy 1000 lead so I can get my city is just such a waste of time imo.

I think passive sinks work far better than purchases. Even if all 5000 of us cloned ourselves and bought every project you released all at once, the prices wouldn't change.